How much of the anti-4E sentiment is actually justified?

[LR]

Honestly the whole thri keen poison thing is super dumb.

It`s supernatural poison. If the Thri keen is in an amf its poison is actually no longer poisonous, because it`s only made poisonous by the inherent magic of thri keen.

I have no trouble at all believing that if you take the poison away from the source of magic, it stops being poisonous, since we already know that occurs.

Poison (Ex): A thri-kreen delivers its poison

[Sashi]

Feats like what exactly- Point Blank shot giving a mighty +1 to hit and damage out to 30', or Precise Shot which is irrelevant when other opponents aren't engaging the ranged opponent in melee? Or Manyshot which basically an extra move?

Literally the only thing that makes archers viable is stacking minor damage boosts with ROF boosts and making a full attack action every round. They'll have something like:
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Rapid Shot
Improved Rapid Shot
Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus
Weapon Spec/Greater Weapon Spec
Bracers of Archery (or greater bracers of archery)
Elemental damage bow
GMW arrows

And is going to be doing full attacks every round with 1d8+2d6+7 or so.

Lack of Power Attack isn't much of a problem either - there's no ranged equivalent without serious splat diving (like the 'Power Draw' class feature in Unapproachable East, IIRC). So, your opponents are going to have their damage downsized by being reduced to ranged attacks as well.

Right, there's no ranged PA, so all that excess BAB the fighter usually turns into damage is being wasted and his damage goes even further in the toilet. So it's a cripple fight, like I said.

The 4E fighter has all the issues with probable lack of a magic weapon, in addition to the difference in the base damage stats from having to use a stat other than their primary for damage

I'm going to stop you right there. Thrown heavy weapons in 4E use Str for attack and damage.

and being dropped back to basic attacks.

The 3E fighter is also dropped from layering all his charge++ or THF++ feats onto his bow. So he's down to "just basic attacks" since he doesn't get feat augmentation. And he doesn't get his magic easter egg artifact sword. I'm not saying that the 4E fighter is in a better situation than the 3E fighter on the switch from melee to ranged, I'm saying it's hypocritical to claim that fighters suck and need easter egg artifact swords to be competitive in one thread, then also claim that 3E fighters can pick up a mundane bow with no feat support and twang their way through a CR-appropriate encounter.

[tzor]

Starting out, humans weren't supposed to have special racial features, as they were the baseline of the human-centric world.

In Gygax's AD&D, humans were more than the "baseline," they were the lynchpin between the world that we lived in and the world of fantasy of AD&D, the common elemet that players could easily understand. (Gygax literally writes an entire page in the DMG that explains this and why this is so.) The key to understanding AD&D is that non humans aren't just given features, they are given massive restrictions. Humans have no restrictions; they can literally be any class, reach the highest levels of the class, and so forth. Non-humans were probably worse off than humans, all things considered.

When the Gygax purge occured in 2E, the notion of non human limitations was lifted while the benefits remained. By the time you got to 3E; it's all about the benefits and perks of non humans and the human race became the race no one wanted to play, ever. Yes, it only got worse in 4E.

[Orion]

Tzor makes no sense. Okay, the level limits in AD&D were offensive but they were also actually pretty high. Meanwhile nonhumans got a variety of free bonuses for which they paid nothing.

Seriously, the only reason in level 1-7 or so you would ever be a human was to be a Paladin, Monk, or to dual-class. (Maybe druids too, I don't remember.) But an Elf Magic-User was just *better* than a Human Magic-User, same for Dwarf Fighters. Plus, the Dwarf Fighter/Cleric and Elf Fighter/MU were pretty good.

---

Meanwhile in 3E almost every optimized character is human because as splatbooks -> infinity, every build has a number of awesome, synergistic feats available > number of feat slots. Plus, many classes don't even have a race that makes them better at their schtick anyway.

[CCarter]

Literally the only thing that makes archers viable is stacking minor damage boosts with ROF boosts and making a full attack action every round. They'll have something like:
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Rapid Shot
Improved Rapid Shot
Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus
Weapon Spec/Greater Weapon Spec
Bracers of Archery (or greater bracers of archery)
Elemental damage bow
GMW arrows

And is going to be doing full attacks every round with 1d8+2d6+7 or so.

I believe I already scoffed at the usefulness for Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot (as a feat that's useful in this circumstance). I'll now scoff at Weapon Focus as well.
Rapid Shot is useful but its an advantage that gets eroded as characters get more attacks from extra BAB. At 1st level it doubles your attacks but by +6 BAB its effectiveness halves (as you from 2 attacks to 3) and by +16 you're only going from 4 attacks to 5.
So 'Opponent has Rapid Shot so fighter is boned' and 'Fighter is down on DPS because at range he can't dual-wield Mjolnir and Stormbringer like usual, while opponent has magic arrows and a magic bow and bracers of archery' are somewhat incompatible arguments.

Right, there's no ranged PA, so all that excess BAB the fighter usually turns into damage is being wasted and his damage goes even further in the toilet. So it's a cripple fight, like I said.
The 3E fighter is also dropped from layering all his charge++ or THF++ feats onto his bow. So he's down to "just basic attacks" since he doesn't get feat augmentation.

Melee damage is generally superior to ranged damage in 3.5, whereas in 4.0 I believe the damage is fairly even between the types, so there's no tradeoff for the tactical benefits here.
In the flying monkey example, the 3.5 fighter loses his melee advantage, but this only puts him on an even keel with the monkeys: they never had power attack or anything equivalent to charge+++ or THF++ feats.

I'm going to stop you right there. Thrown heavy weapons in 4E use Str for attack and damage.

and being dropped back to basic attacks.

OK - true. Albeit this is limited to quite short range. A mighty composite longbow is still better than being reduced to javelining or throwing handaxes at people.

[quote/]

And he doesn't get his magic easter egg artifact sword. I'm not saying that the 4E fighter is in a better situation than the 3E fighter on the switch from melee to ranged, I'm saying it's hypocritical to claim that fighters suck and need easter egg artifact swords to be competitive in one thread, then also claim that 3E fighters can pick up a mundane bow with no feat support and twang their way through a CR-appropriate encounter.

To my recollection I actually haven't claimed this anywhere.

A couple of other points:
*On the magic weapon thing, I'll also say 'go buy some magic arrows'. (Your DMF may well have gotten some of these the last time the flying monkeys attacked even, and if you sold them to get a bigger artifact sword, as MC I am unsympathetic).

*Also as far as comparing '3E' and 4E here, note we're actually explicitly comparing 3.5 and 4. Wings of Flying were 5500 GP in 3.0 and the melee fighter at higher levels could probably just go beat up his monkeys hand to hand.

[Username17]

Yeah, Thri-Kreen Poison is (Ex) in the version I'm looking at. The Thri-Kreen got statted up like 6 times, so maybe it's (Su) in one version or another - I don't actually care. The real point is: 3 actually has rules for condensing and preserving the poison from an animal so that you can put it on a weapon. The Thri-Kreen only produces one bite worth per day, so you'd only get a dose of transferable Thri-Kreen poison every week and a half by juicing one. It's actually kind of a waste of time, but you could do it if you really cared.

I'm not saying that the 4E fighter is in a better situation than the 3E fighter on the switch from melee to ranged, I'm saying it's hypocritical to claim that fighters suck and need easter egg artifact swords to be competitive in one thread, then also claim that 3E fighters can pick up a mundane bow with no feat support and twang their way through a CR-appropriate encounter.

No it isn't, because both statements are true. The CR appropriate challenge of "a flying archer floats around at long range and shoots at you" is actually not very difficult in 3e for a character who has a bow and the presence of mind to fire from cover. There are many many encounters that a Fighter can't best without their artifact sword, including basically any Closet Trolls after the first couple of levels. But "some harpies with bows" is just not an insurmountable problem for 3e characters with longbow proficiency.

It is an insurmountable problem for 4e characters, because the different to-hit math means that instead of merely losing out on power attack damage when using an unfamiliar attack pattern you simply don't hit at all. And no, "heavy thrown" weapons do not make up the difference, because they lack the needed range to actually reach harpies with bows.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

A 3E fighter will have a magicked-up sword with d6's of extra damage and power attack

What kind of moronic fighter bothers with +1d6 flaming damage?

[Swordslinger]

No it isn't, because both statements are true. The CR appropriate challenge of "a flying archer floats around at long range and shoots at you" is actually not very difficult in 3e for a character who has a bow and the presence of mind to fire from cover. There are many many encounters that a Fighter can't best without their artifact sword, including basically any Closet Trolls after the first couple of levels. But "some harpies with bows" is just not an insurmountable problem for 3e characters with longbow proficiency.

That's only true because 3E didn't actually create many range fighting monsters. In almost all cases monsters were more dangerous in melee then they ever could be at range. It meant that 3E mongol PCs were devastating, because they were the few ranged specialists in the game. 4E seems to have a worse mongol possibility because it makes ranged attack monsters credible threats. A hobgoblin archer isn't the pitiful joke he was in 3E.

Of course, 3e had huge exceptions too, anything flying with DR basically means your fighter is SoL, unless he happened to have a magic bow. Doubly so if the enemy is flying and invisible, so the 7th level wizard can still utterly destroy you. But that's not surprising from the edition that gave wizards everything. Then the fighter and his pitiful longbow ain't gonna do shit.

[Psychic Robot]

That's only true because 3E didn't actually create many range fighting monsters. In almost all cases monsters were more dangerous in melee then they ever could be at range. It meant that 3E mongol PCs were devastating, because they were the few ranged specialists in the game.

No, that's the difference between 3e and 4e. In 3e, I can hand a group of monsters some longbows and they'll be able to hold their own against mongols. In 4e, I hand a group of monsters some longbows and I'm stuck figuring out what their attack and damage is supposed to be. (Is it the same as their melee damage? If so, why would they ever melee and not stay at range? If not, what's the appropriate attack and damage? The world may never know.)

[TheFlatline]

in the same way that 3e or 3.5e errata was followable by the masses, sure

online tools just make it easier


though I do enjoy your implication that 4e has more "verbal puke" than 3.5 where they had to release new errata with almost every new 3pp splatbook that introduced a new retarded ability

So in other words, it's impossible to follow massive amounts of errata without online tools.

Also, that I'm aware, 3.x never did anything as drastic as literally errata every single monster in the Monster Manual 1.

Nor did entire character builds rise, thrive, and get nerfed into oblivion in 3.x purely in errata. I'm thinking particularly of the sordid history of magic missile through errata and how many times it's changed drastically.

Really, the errata of 4th ed is so extreme and so variable and so... well... short lived, that playing the game with all it's errata today is drastically and fundamentally different than playing the game at print, or playing it 2 years after launch with full errata.

[RelentlessImp]

Nor did entire character builds rise, thrive, and get nerfed into oblivion in 3.x purely in errata.

To be fair, Chuck E. Cheese fell apart with errata. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, though.

[Koumei]

Chuck E. Cheese? Which build is that?

[LR]

Chuck E. Cheese? Which build is that?

It's a Fightan Magic build that reaches a movement speed above the speed of light. I think the name comes from the wimpy throw maneuvers.

So, CharOp bullshit instead of something playable.

[Plebian]

No, that's the difference between 3e and 4e. In 3e, I can hand a group of monsters some longbows and they'll be able to hold their own against mongols. In 4e, I hand a group of monsters some longbows and I'm stuck figuring out what their attack and damage is supposed to be. (Is it the same as their melee damage? If so, why would they ever melee and not stay at range? If not, what's the appropriate attack and damage? The world may never know.)

the damage for most monsters would be the same the attack bonus for anything not ranged would be lower unless they were using appropriate-stat-using weapons, and why would any martial character ever melee in any edition and not just stay at range when they can do nearly the same damage with ranged attacks, oh right it's because having a longbow when someone does close to range is a huge liability

ooh and someone quick say how the mongol problem exists somehow in 4e because it's not like you can ready an action to shoot the first enemy to come within range and then equally trade shots with any horse archer who wants to attack you

oh wait you can, shit that negates the mongol problem entirely

[Doom]

It's almost like it's deliberately using bad grammar.

[Winnah]

ooh and someone quick say how the mongol problem exists somehow in 4e because it's not like you can ready an action to shoot the first enemy to come within range and then equally trade shots with any horse archer who wants to attack you

oh wait you can, shit that negates the mongol problem entirely

So a melee party is going to have no problem matching the damage of a strafing dargon by readying handaxes? Riiiiight.

[fectin]

I would assume he thinks so for the reason he gave above:

Kobold slingers' ammo presumably isn't made from their own by-products.

I happen to (sort of) agree with you, and think that the logical conclusion is that there is an aftermarket for Thri-Kreen saliva.

Or maybe that Thri-keen saliva lose its potency when exposed to air for too long (.i.e 60 seconds or more).

Which it doesn't matter when delivered by bite or spit (I can't remember how it works) but even if you were able to make true air-proof containers it would make it useless the moment you put it on your weapons.

Any poison smeared on an object or exposed to the elements in any way remains potent until it is touched or used.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison

...and the Thri-Kreen entry doesn't contradict that. Like someone pointed out earlier though, it's not a very good poison. There may not be a market from lack of demand. At least in 3.x, this problem is extremely solveable. Scratch that; this is a non-problem.

Also, for this much of an edge case, this is pretty vindicating for 3.x. It's not like Thri-Kreen are carrying around super equipment that evaporates; there's all kinds of easily believeble reasons for there not to be a fluids market for Thri-Kreen, and it's not even a little game-breaking if there is.

[CCarter]

Of course, 3e had huge exceptions too, anything flying with DR basically means your fighter is SoL, unless he happened to have a magic bow. Doubly so if the enemy is flying and invisible, so the 7th level wizard can still utterly destroy you. But that's not surprising from the edition that gave wizards everything. Then the fighter and his pitiful longbow ain't gonna do shit.

That's weird, I'd swear there was a goalpost here earlier...
If we're going from comparing 'fighters with bows against flying monsters' to fighters against wizards in PvP - however poorly the fighter fares here in 3E, you've doing a battle here between a PC-build character and another PC-build character. Something 4E doesn't or can't do at all.

[Plebian]

ooh and someone quick say how the mongol problem exists somehow in 4e because it's not like you can ready an action to shoot the first enemy to come within range and then equally trade shots with any horse archer who wants to attack you

oh wait you can, shit that negates the mongol problem entirely

So a melee party is going to have no problem matching the damage of a strafing dargon by readying handaxes? Riiiiight.

oooh so now mongols were strafing dragons man my history classes were way, way off

any DM who uses the strafing dragon technique isn't using the dragon for an interesting combat encounter, unless it's against an almost entirely ranged party, it's being used to either punish the party or to herd them into doing what the DM wants and that's shitty, unimaginative railroading

That's weird, I'd swear there was a goalpost here earlier...
If we're going from comparing 'fighters with bows against flying monsters' to fighters against wizards in PvP - however poorly the fighter fares here in 3E, you've doing a battle here between a PC-build character and another PC-build character. Something 4E doesn't or can't do at all.

actually fighters with ranged weapons against flying monsters in 4e are usually better off, because heavy thrown weapons of any type will allow the fighter to use strength for attack and damage which I don't remember being allowed in 3e without a feat tax added on. also any magical throwing weapon automatically has returning.

oh and 4e PvP works every bit as well as 3e PvP which is to say incredibly poorly; neither system has any semblance of balance for PvP but at least in 4e that's recognized and monsters aren't treated as players anymore


also why does Frank being completely unfamiliar with 4e's weapons not surprise me ohhhh it's because he also thinks monsters can't use magical items even though there are rules for them in the DMG

harpies would, likely, be using a shortbow with ranges of 15/30, a javelin is 10/20, so you could still easily engage any harpy that wasn't taking a -2 to hit, and a distance weapon would turn the javelins into 15/30, as well. longbows might change that a little bit but you can still engage the enemies, you'll just have a -2 penalty which is still better than the complete loss of stat bonus to attack bonus that a 3e fighter would have to eat

[Plebian]

Any poison smeared on an object or exposed to the elements in any way remains potent until it is touched or used.

.

sorry this breaks my verisimilitude in a horrible way I will never be able to play 3e it is a horrible game with no consistency my verisimilituuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

Any poison smeared on an object or exposed to the elements in any way remains potent until it is touched or used.

.

sorry this breaks my verisimilitude in a horrible way I will never be able to play 3e it is a horrible game with no consistency my verisimilituuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude

Are you even trying anymore?

I really don't understand why you posted this. If I wrote that post, with that lack of punctuation and that awful grammar and that non-point, I would be ashamed of myself.

I mean, let's be fair. It is obvious that you are just trolling. You've come to a forum with a pretty strong consensus on some issues, and you've decided to defy that consensus in the most childish and irritating way possible. I don't care about that so much - trolling is a pretty common pastime on the internet, and I certainly can't throw any stones - but could you at least put some effort into it? This is becoming embarrassing.

[Swordslinger]

That's weird, I'd swear there was a goalpost here earlier...
If we're going from comparing 'fighters with bows against flying monsters' to fighters against wizards in PvP - however poorly the fighter fares here in 3E, you've doing a battle here between a PC-build character and another PC-build character. Something 4E doesn't or can't do at all.

This isn't PvP. A wizard NPC is perfectly legal in 3E rules. It's just another thing you may encounter. The fact that 3E uses PC rules to generate NPCs and 4E doesn't is irrelevant.

We're dealing with possibly encounters you may have in either edition. You're the one trying to move the goalposts.

[Kaelik]

any DM who uses the strafing dragon technique isn't using the dragon for an interesting combat encounter, unless it's against an almost entirely ranged party, it's being used to either punish the party or to herd them into doing what the DM wants and that's shitty, unimaginative railroading

Unless they are playing in 3e, in which case, it's an interesting combat encounter, and the expected tactic for a flying fire breathing creature.

But I can see how only ever playing the shitty 4e game you would become confused and think that having the Dragons follow the explicit tactics layed out for them would be cheating.

[LR]

I found a nice quote while searching that expounds on the "Fighters still don't have nice things" critique.

A Shock Trooper character does a lot more than just charge for massive damage. That's something that they do, but it's not all they do. They also push enemies around causing them to fall down and be subjected to bonus attacks. And try to trip people and subject them to bonus attacks. And push people in weird diagonal arcs over the battlefield if that is for some reason important. And they can fight defensively or inaccurately for massive damage. These are all things that they do, all the time, over and over again. And it's all fairly useful as far as D&D Fighter stuff goes. It's what passes for a decent and extremely simple build.

But you aren't winning any converts by dismissing this kind of stuff as unimportant when one of the shiny things that a 4e character gets is Spinning Sweep once a god damn encounter. An attack that does some damage and knocks an enemy prone looks an awful lot like an Improved Trip attack that a Shock Trooper Fighter from 3rd can do at-will. Power Attack isn't a really exciting option, but it's not particularly different from the "Reckless Strike" that the 4e fighter gets once per god damn encounter. Standing there and taking a Full Attack is not inherently that great, but again it is not super different from the "Rain of Blows" that rounds out the last encounter power that our 4e Fighter is blessed to know. For the 4e Dailies, the Fighter gets Brutal Strike (a one-time damage bonus), and Dizzying Strike (a melee attack that ends enemy movement) - which are more than made up for by the fact that the 3rd edition fighter has the Heedless Charge option and can make Improved Trips as opportunity attacks that end movement and do damage. The 4e Fighter can get Cleave to do bullshit tiny damage on an adjacent enemy and the Shock Trooper can Domino Charge two people at a time, the 4e Fighter can Tide of Iron and do some damage and push people around, while the Shock Trooper can directed bullrush and produce the same effect.

And now... we're literally out of 4e attack powers and the Shock Trooper can still Expertise his AC up into turtle world if for some reason that's important. Seriously, power for power a basic 3rd edition Shock Trooper can do everything you can do, and he can do it better. And I'm saying this not because 3rd edition Fighters are good or even "not bad," but because literally every character in 4e is bad. And limited. And uninteresting.

Even the painfully limited and underwhelming options available to the 3rd edition fighter are literally more game shaking, more diverse, and more available than the options given to the 4e Fighter. The options are just color coded and itemized in giant text blocks and printed up as cards to make them look bigger and more impressive. But Having a special Reckless Strike card isn't actually more optionarific than having Power Attack, it's actually less so because you can't mix and match it with Trips and Charges.

-Username17

Now we just need a claim that because the 3e Fighter falls off the level treadmill faster than the 4e Fighter, the 4e Fighter has more options.

[Gods_Trick]

In 4E a dragon (or dargon if you play in Plebian's games) is cheating . Poor bastards cant do anything. Which again strengthens the 'can't tell fantasy stories in 4E' argument.

Seriously, what type of fucking fantasy simulation has the players unable to fight a CR equivalent dragon if its flying and using its breathweapons?!